Tweet
Re: BillyTommo's UE Diary
I've got your email.
You've only sent me Page 1 of Shoosmiths letter. The final paragraph matters (on Page 2?) because that's the bit which will say what they intend to do next. Hopefully it will say they don't intend to do anything but we need to be sure. Send it to me.
Their letter quite rightly points out that there will be no Notice of Assignment provided under your Pre-Action Protocol request because the debt is still with the original creditor (because it hasn't been sold to a debt purchaser). Maybe you should have tweaked your LBA response to reflect that. It doesn't matter though. It's simply one less legal argument that you could make if this lands in court which is what we're trying to prevent.
Their letter says they have enclosed copies of NW's response to your CCA request. Can you email me/Niddy/Elsa whatever it is they enclosed since that's what they intend to rely on in court so it'll be a good opportunity to see what they've got in their arsenal.
They say that a copy statement was enclosed. Let us see that. Sometimes a statement includes a Notice of Sums in Arrears (s.86 CCA). If it doesn't (or the statement doesn't comply with s.86) and they've not sent you one then they may be in some difficulty when it comes to enforcing.
The object of the exercise is to try to convince Shoosmiths that they shouldn't issue proceedings without alerting them to what they've got wrong so they can't remedy the problem.
We're getting there slowly
Plan B x
I've got your email.
You've only sent me Page 1 of Shoosmiths letter. The final paragraph matters (on Page 2?) because that's the bit which will say what they intend to do next. Hopefully it will say they don't intend to do anything but we need to be sure. Send it to me.
Their letter quite rightly points out that there will be no Notice of Assignment provided under your Pre-Action Protocol request because the debt is still with the original creditor (because it hasn't been sold to a debt purchaser). Maybe you should have tweaked your LBA response to reflect that. It doesn't matter though. It's simply one less legal argument that you could make if this lands in court which is what we're trying to prevent.
Their letter says they have enclosed copies of NW's response to your CCA request. Can you email me/Niddy/Elsa whatever it is they enclosed since that's what they intend to rely on in court so it'll be a good opportunity to see what they've got in their arsenal.
They say that a copy statement was enclosed. Let us see that. Sometimes a statement includes a Notice of Sums in Arrears (s.86 CCA). If it doesn't (or the statement doesn't comply with s.86) and they've not sent you one then they may be in some difficulty when it comes to enforcing.
The object of the exercise is to try to convince Shoosmiths that they shouldn't issue proceedings without alerting them to what they've got wrong so they can't remedy the problem.
We're getting there slowly
Plan B x
Comment